|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - June 29, 1995
|
| |
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., No. 94-859,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 29, 1995, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The organization contended that the regulation defining harm, particularly the inclusion of habitat modification and degradation, exceeded the authority of ? 9(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C.S. ? 1539(a)(1)(B). The Court held that the regulation was reasonable because an ordinary understanding of the word "harm" encompassed habitat modification that resulted in actual injury or death to endangered or threatened species. The fact that the Secretary was authorized to issue permits for takings that ? 9(a)(1)(B) of the ESA would otherwise prohibit, if such taking was incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity, strongly suggested that Congress understood ? 9(a)(1)(B) to prohibit indirect as well as deliberate takings. The latitude the ESA gave the Secretary in enforcing the statute, together with the degree of regulatory expertise necessary to its enforcement, established that some degree of deference was owed to the Secretary's reasonable interpretation. The legislative history further supported the Court's conclusion that the Secretary's definition of harm rested on a permissible construction of the ESA.
|
|
| |
Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, No. 94-780,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 29, 1995, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Respondents, a group of isolationists, sought to erect a cross on a state-owned plaza managed by petitioners, an advisory board. Petitioners denied respondents' application, but other holiday displays were permitted. Respondents sued, claiming a free-speech violation under U.S. Const. amend. I, and sought an injunction requiring petitioners to issue the requested permit, which the district court granted. Petitioners contended the issuance of a permit would violate the Establishment Clause, U.S. Const. amend. I. On appeal, the Court affirmed because it reasoned petitioners could not, on the claim of misperception of official endorsement, ban all private religious speech from the public square, or discriminate against it by requiring religious speech alone to disclaim public sponsorship. The Court further determined religious expression could not violate the Establishment Clause where it was purely private and occurred in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced and open to all on equal terms.
|
|
| |
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., No. 94-329,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 29, 1995, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioner students brought an action against respondents alleging U.S. Const. amend. I violations for respondents' refusal to authorize payment to a third-party contractor for the printing costs of petitioners student publication. On review, the Supreme Court held that the respondents discriminated on the basis of religious editorial viewpoints, not religion itself. The Court held that the petitioners sought funding as a student journal, an enterprise supported by the student activity fund (SAF). Additionally, the Court held that petitioners' disbursement request was for payment to a private contractor for the printing costs of materials that are protected under the First Amendment. Thus, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents because respondents Establishment Clause concern did not warrant denying payment to the third-party contractor.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback